Jump to content

Talk:Ebook/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Cleanup tag

Just... wow. Far too many headers; unclear focus; random soapboxing, advocacy, advertising. Massive amounts of work needed on basically every part of this. Chris Cunningham 08:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

TequilaCat

I have added a link to TequilaCat in the software section of external links. This is not SPAM. It is one of the most popular programs for creating E-books for Java enabled cell phones. Part of the site is in the Russian language, but it can easily be translated using Babelfish or similar. DFH 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ReadManiac

Likewise I have added a link to another popular free program called ReadManiac for reading E-books on mobile phones. This too comes from Russia. The link is not SPAM. DFH 20:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Newton Book Reader Extension

Note that this extension is not compatible with Firefox 2.0+ DFH 20:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Flib

Interactive multi-media ebooks are primarily multimedia, and I dont think belongs here. DGG 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

E-documents

Do you have a reference for the use of this term? It's logical, but where did you see it used.? DGG 04:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Stronger tag

I've changed this to a rewrite tag. This article lacks any real direction or style. Starting again would be a good option. Chris Cunningham 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the policy of Wikipedia is not a directory, I want to respond to the anonymous IP's edit summary where he/she says that the list is "useful." Please see WP:NOT#INFO and WP:USEFUL.

It is acceptable to include a link to a Wikipedia article about an eBook provider, if they are notable enough. This is important because 1) it provides a process whereby the company is vetted for notability, so that we don't find we are advertising your uncle Bob's startup company; and 2) it makes it more encyclopedia-y and less spamm-y. --Jaysweet 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

While it does have e-book functionality, it is not an e-book reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.158.215 (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lowercase tag

The following are taken from my and Mr. Cunningham's personal discussion pages:

Twice now you've removed the lowercase tag from e-book, stating that "Wikipedia is not Wiktionary". Properly naming articles is a requirement of the Manual of Style, and in particular Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#Lower case first letter applies here. Please don't copy and paste old edit summaries when reverting changes. Chris Cunningham 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Cunningham,
Although I disagree with the LC template to begin with, I would think it would apply only to pages such as "eBay", "cPanel" and "vBulletin". A word (not a trademark) that is all lowercase and is not a proper noun (such as Christopher or Costco) would fall under the category of all other nouns such as boat or island. When written in a sentence they are lowercase but when at the beginning or in a headline or title the noun would be uppercase just as in "boat" or "island". The only example I can think of at the moment would be the Vi text editor. There is only one Vi, and I would treat it as a trademark. An infinite amount of e-books can exist and should be treated just as an infinite amount of boats can exist. -Henry W. Schmitt 19:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
, but I'd rather actually be convinced than simply be reverted with a comment which doesn't really explain the rationale. I'll take this to the talk page. Chris Cunningham 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not familiar with Wiktionary. Every page name can be lowercase without the use of special templates. In other words, Wiktionary page names are more case sensitive than Wikipedia. All improper nouns start with a lowercase letter. My comment was reflecting this and noting that improper nouns on Wikipedia mustn't be lowercase. Many page-edits were performed on the page in question between my two respective removals of the Lowercase template, and none of the edit-summaries mentioned the Lowercase template so I just duplicated my previous edit without consulting the discussion page, which I probably should have done. Thank you for leaving an edit-summary and bringing this matter to my attention. -Henry W. Schmitt 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have once again removed the {{lowercase}}. Please argue here. -Henry W. Schmitt 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A e-book can be used for ict reasons but personaly i think its ebook are good to use. if you ask me? i think its a lowd of bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.190.4 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disadvantages

The last few disadvantages seem to almost make eBooks sound evil, such as: "the device is in control" and what not- In effect the user is in control either way. 68.112.254.179 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent "removed POV" edits

Copied from user talk:Netrat to get a wider response. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that while parts of your edit may be obvious improvements, too much of is as a whole is questionable for the current version to remain. For what it's worth, adding "balance" to an article by way of personal counterpoints is not considered to be "removing POV" by most editors - it generally doesn't improve article quality because now the article has two unsourced opinions in it and not one. For now, you should revert and break the edit down into its component sections before re-adding it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What exact sections do you refer as questionable? I believe I have answered all concerns few lines above. What I've added were not anyone's personal opinions, but mere indications of obvious facts. You don't challenge them, right? I havn't added words like "the most important", "the least important", "all the people agree" or "some people agrue". And what do you mean by "break the edit down into its component sections"? Netrat (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's see. "On the other hand, producing paper books is also hazardous for environment" is highly subjective; it is perfectly possible to produce a book in a sustainable manner, as was done for most of the history of the book. "This is a disadvantage for publishers, but at the same time an advantage for readers, since they don't have to pay for reading a book." that's mostly silly; criminal activity might be advantageous, but being subject to criminal activity is not really an "advantage". "For example, all fiction from XIX century or older is in public domain." This might be true, but in the absence of an electronic copy the potential reader is still obliged to obtain a copy of any book in that range, and as physical objects they are rarely free. That's most of the edit. Your comment above is mostly rhetoric rather than a rebuttal to the specific points in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
1) Papermaking consumes great ammounts of wood and water. One e-book device allows users to read 100's and even 1000's of books. A paper equivalent of such ammont of text would use a lot of wood, electricity, water and chemicals, even if sustainable technology is used. 2) Many people do not believe that making electronic copies of content is a criminal activity. Defining this as "a criminal activity" is very biased in the core, especially when you don't mention what jurisdiction you are talking about. There's a strong opposition to current copyright laws and practice; further links have already been provided. Very, very few people ever went to jail for downloading copyrighted texts from Internet. This is an exceptional rather than common. And anyway, the advantage for readers was getting books for free, not having to deal legal side of this action. It would be silly to say that the ability to get books for free is a disadvantage for readers. 3) What do you mean "absence of an electronic copy"? They are actually present. To "obtain" a book by Mark Twain or William Shakespeare, all you need to do is open Project Gutenberg, Library of Congress, Wikisource or any other web-site that hosts public domain texts, make a couple of clicks and start reading. Netrat (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Replying point-by-point:
  1. This is false equivalence. The papermaking industry existed for hundreds of years (and indeed the writing industry for thousands beforehand) without causing the kind of ecological damage required to produce one single e-reader. While it is possible to damage the environment in the production of paper books, it is not a requirement in the way that procuring heavy metals and polymers is for electronics.
    1. O RLY? Netrat (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. Totally undue weight. "Many people" is just an unqualified weasel term here - the situation you're arguing is that while copyright law prohibits such acts in any juristiction which follows the Berne Convention, we should equivocate this with "many people" who are neither named nor referenced. This is not a soapbox upon which to stand while proclaiming the unjustness of copyright law.
    1. Now "Many people" is an actual link. A link to a political party with more than 37,000 members in Sweden alone. Are you arguing this is not "many people"? Netrat (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    2. And to get straight to the point, are you arguing that being able to read a book for free is a disadvantage over having to pay for it? Netrat (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. What is silly is arguing that the ability for people to illegally access content is somehow an advantage. One does not claim that one of the advantages of supermarkets over traditional counter-top stores is that the poor could choose to steal food from the shelves.
  4. Erm, yes, I misread this one. Conceded. However, it needed rephrased to indicate that it is still necessary to pay for books when the copyright has expired while electronic copies may be readily obtained.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantage I added

The fact reading extensively off a computer screen can cause eye strain and discomfort is, I think, obvious. Although some of the newer e-book readers are trying to rectify this, it's still an issue for people (like me) having to read extensive amounts of text -- such as Wikipedia! -- on a screen. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Disadvantage - Screen resolution of reading devices

"Screen resolution of reading devices may be lower than actual paper"
The reason: "For instance the screen resolution of Amazon Kindle is 167 ppi versus 600-2400 ppi for a typical laser printer." (reference quoted)
It seems, to me, the screen display and laser printing are based on different media and technology. Is it appropriate to conclude, as long as the resolution of the screen of readers is lower than that of printing, the e-book readeers will be inferior than books?
Would it be more appropriate to base it on how satisfied users are reading from electronic readers compare with conventional books? --North wiki (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There are over 2 million free books available for download as of August 2009. Where are they being downloaded from?

Were can i access free ebooks that do not contain dr, and are in an open format such as epub, and pdf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delstarinfo (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Which one?

Article states contradicting "facts"...

  • Costs- While an e-book reader costs much more than one book, the electronic texts are generally cheaper. Moreover, a great share of books are available free of charge. For example, all fiction from before the year 1900 is in the public domain. E-books can be printed for less than the price of traditional new books using new on-demand book printers.
  • Costs- The cost of an e-book reader far exceeds that of a single book, and e-books often cost the same as their print versions. Due to the high cost of the initial investment in some form of e-reader, e-books are cost prohibitive to much of the world's population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.171.63 (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The .pdb extension

The PDB disambiguation page mention this article among many matches, but this acronym appears nowhere in the article. The extension is used at least by Barnes & Noble for its e-book format. It's unclear to me if this is the same .pdb format as used by PalmOS. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Books Stacks Unlimited Needs Removal?

Listed in the timeline: 

1992: Charles Stack's Book Stacks Unlimited begins selling new physical books online.

I'm having a hard time understanding what this is even doing in the timeline. It doesn't relate to eBooks at all, and from the linked wiki article, the site was just one of the early web stores (in this case for buying physical books, not eBooks). Seems like someone likely added it as self-promotion. TrackZero (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Then again, to that point, it seems strange that a note in the timeline is also listed for Amazon selling physical books online. Again, pointless to eBooks. TrackZero (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I added Book Stacks because it seemed an important follow-up to Project Gutenberg in this timeline. Amazon, Project Gutenberg and Book Stacks were major stepping stones in the digital display of fiction and non-fiction during the 20th century. Beginning such a timeline with Project Gutenberg certainly looks like the best starting point. Pepso2 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another advantage: search functionality

The ability to search an e-book for a piece of text is a candidate advantage, in my view. But I'd rather not touch this part of the article if it's going to be rewritten. Mattmm (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I've just noticed this is mentioned under "E-Reader Attributes". Perhaps it could be given more prominence. Mattmm (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Is an ebook an electronic device or is it a file for storage in one?

Currently, the definition is “a portable electronic device used to download and read books or magazines that are in digital form.” I dont believe Ive ever known an ebook as a device. I recognize that an ebook is a file (commonly a PDF) which emulates the style of a printed/traditional book digitally.

Is the general sentiment here that an ebook is a device, or that an ebook is a file? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackRetina (talk • contribs) 11:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. To me (and to Project Gutenburg, which oughta know) an e-book is a -file-. I quote: "Project Gutenberg is the place where you can download over 33,000 free ebooks to read on your PC, iPad, Kindle, Sony Reader, iPhone, Android or other portable device." There are *many* e-book formats. They may require an e-reader (even a particular e-reader) or simply any MP3 player. They may have DRM or not. Anyway: the current definition which tops the page is incorrect (if not a lark) ... and the single cited reference is completely unuseful. Twang (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. An e-book is a file. Project Gutenburg, bookstores and libraries offer ebooks as files, although some bookstores and libraries offer ebook devices AND files. Ebook devices have their own page that redirects to ebook readers. I can also check the book that is cited in note 1, to verify that it doesn't say this. I have it on order, and will check as soon as it comes in. In any case, please feel free to change it, BlackRetina. Dczarnik (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As discussed above, I checked the citation, and found the quoted text to be incorrect. I corrected it, and resolved the issue of whether an ebook is a device or file. Another interesting statement from the first paragraph from this source, was: "The e-book is a young medium and its definition is a work in progress, emerging from the history of the print book and evolving technology. In this context it is less useful to consider the book as object -- particularly as commercial object -- than to view it as cultural practice, with the e-book as one manifestation of this practice."1 Dczarnik (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Literati from Sharper Image

Deserves an entry. 75.18.165.82 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to find an e-book on amazon that is cheaper than getting a good or better quality used one to my door

None of this concerns free e-books, of course. Go to any book. You will almost certainly find it for $.01 + $3.99 shipping on amazon from someone. These books almost always cost $5-$20 for the e-book. Clearly, this means I pay more for the e-book. Cost is no advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.52.24 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

need to update ebook versus paperback book numbers.

According to a news release from Amazon, dated January 27, ebooks have out-paced paperback sales. Here's a link to the release:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1521090&highlight=

I've never really edited a wikipedia page before, so I'm not sure what the standard etiquette is for updates. But the point that says "Paperback book sales are still much larger than either hardcover or e-book" is now a factual error that needs remedying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperZu (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality questioned

It looks to me like somebody affiliated with the iLiad eBook reader has a stake in this page. There are three pictures of the iLiad, a device by a small, niche manufacturer which never attained any popularity and may not even be manufactured anymore, and zero pictures of the most popular readers from Amazon, Sony, and Barnes & Noble. I don't like deleting stuff when I have nothing to replace it with, so I have not removed the pictures. But, surely, some or all of those pictures can be replaced with ones that are more representative of reality.

The bottom-most picture (the one with the pile of books) is perhaps OK to leave because it illustrates something useful, but there is no substantiation for the claim in the caption and that stack would probably consume about 0.3% of a Kindle's memory (~3500 books). From what I can see on the iLiad page, it looks like it could hold about 300 books without memory expansion, which would mean that stack is around 5% of the iLiad's capacity, not 1%.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Better to fix it than leave misrepresentative material in the article. I killed the three pix and added a Kindle instead. POV tag removed. andy (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Since my company produces interactive eBooks for the Kindle (and we're the first company to do so), I didn't want to appear to be promoting the Kindle over other devices. I think this is a fine change. RoyLeban (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Correction to number of e-book awards programs.

I made a correction which was removed to the the paragraph regarding e-book awards by splitting it from the middle of the paragraph as it is two separate topics under the heading, changing the number of e-book award programs from "two" to "several" and also included the most recent one which I have a vested interest in promoting.

If there were an entry for automobile manufacturers and it said there were only two in the US and they are Chrysler and GM, then who would correct it but someone from Ford or Tesla Motors perhaps?

This does need to be changed and other e-book award programs need to be listed. Our website listed several resources for e-book authors and publishers including other awards programs. Of course we are interested in participation in our program, but we also offer something unique.

In the example above, if a fact were included that Tesla Motors is an automobile manufacturer, then it should also be noted that they make all-electric vehicles because it is noteworthy and relevant to those interested in the topic.

I don't know how things work around here with people marking factual comments as spam or vandalism and maintaining the status quo of innacuracy, but if there is someone who "decides" who is right here, someone please point that out so that I can get some referee power going. Meshmarketer (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Joseph Dowdy, April 29, 2011 4:52pm PST

I suggest you read WP:NOTADVERTISING, to start with, then WP:RELIABLE. (Hohum @) 00:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
After reading your suggestions, I decide to take a different tack and make an edit that would be less beneficial and more democratic and equal but that got deleted and I got a warning that my changes are disruptive editing...and I am soapboxing? If I am soapboxing, then why hasn't anyone made a change to correct the factual inaccuracy that there are MORE than two e-book awards out there? And why would my addition of three of them to the two listed constitute an inaccuracy? I have questions, but no answers here. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be more democratic. Is this not democratic? Will not one stand against inaccuracies?

Meshmarketer (talk)

I've been looking into the process by which Wikipedia operates and there is one important part of the Five Pillars that is missing here:

"Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,627,394 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming."

This does not mean that because you CAN delete someone's edit that you should or that you should not provide any open or welcoming feedback. I see no one acting in good faith for the truth by labeling my edits as either spam or advertising or disruptive. This part of the article is simply inaccurate and I have proved it and no one is open or welcoming to me in this regard. No one is treating me with the kind of respect or politeness that they would expect if they were new. There is no civil discourse here because there is no DISCOURSE at all. Discourse means that you don't simply silence an edit by deleting it, but instead you have to offer some kind information to form a consensus. No one is offering to form a consensus.

And the notice on the Edit Warring page says very simply "This page in a nutshell: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion." In other words, don't just delete someone's edits. Have a DISCUSSION about it. I am looking into how to bring greater attention to this so that my edits can be CORRECTLY placed so that the world can know that there are more than two e-book awards competitions and that at least five of them should be listed if two are listed today.

For those who say that my edits are advertising, well I say to you by leaving this page as it is that you are advertising for the two that are listed.

And another thing, this idea of "soapboxing" simply means that no one will step up and say, "Hey, I disagree with you." because what I am saying is true: there are SEVERAL e-book awards out there and not TWO.

I will continue to look into how to bring greater attention this matter so that anyone who has deleted my edits can be brought under greater scrutiny for their lack of communication, lack of assistance and lack of interest in accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshmarketer (talk • contribs) 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem which editors appear to be having with your additions is that they appear to be awards given as marketing gimmicks. Your username, and the WP:Single-purpose account behaviour probably isn't helping either. (Hohum @) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought that "anyone" can edit? Doesn't that mean that even someone who is affiliated with an entry can update it as long as it reaches a common consensus as to the content? Why is there no debate as to what WILL stand as an update to this entry? It doesn't matter if I'm George Washington or Charles Manson. The truth is the truth: There are MORE than TWO e-book awards. Now can we agree on an update? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshmarketer (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

Read WP:NOTADVERTISING again, and then WP:COI.
I already changed the wording.
(Hohum @) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition

I would drop the phrase "Some personal computers and cell phones can also be used, especially to read documents in pdf format": all personal comoputer can be used (why 'some'?), and the reference to pdf as the preferred format for reading ebooks on smartphones is now obsolete (e-book reading software for the epub format is now available on iPhone, Android, Blueberry, Nokia...)

Here is a definition from around 2001: " An ebook is a literary work in the form of a digital object consisting of one or more standard unique identifiers, metadata, and a monographic body of content, intended to be published and accessed electronically" (a committee of the American Association of Publishers, QUOTED AT http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-is-ebook-anyway.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.30.91 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition

I've just added a definition from the “electronic book” article in the Oxford Companion to the Book, which admittedly I was one of the authors on. The original definition from the Oxford Dictionary of English is not correct, because it claims that an e-book is a "version of a printed book," which may have been true at some point, but we are now seeing born-digital books that have no print equivalent. I have left the original definition on the page noting the distinction. Egardiner0 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Egardiner0

      • this should be updated; the OED has moved on now to say "A hand-held electronic device on which the text of a book can be read. Also: a book whose text is available in an electronic format for reading on such a device or on a computer screen", which makes more sense presently (and will change again no doubt in a couple of years' time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.239.14 (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Citation Issues

With the increasing popularity of e-books and the lack of citation standards, how will academics validate their use? It is virtually impossible to describe accurately where you are quoting a source due to variations in device formats, texts sizes and fonts. Due to proprietary requirements by the different e-book readers, standardization does not seem possible or even desirable. What are the implications for the future of academic usage? If e-books are the future of publishing, how can academics stay up to date on current issues if there is no standardization of formats?

Feel free to respond Jamaolo (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

I think the timeline needs to be cleaned up. At the moment, I'd like to add a few key events, including the publishing of the first hypertext fiction, as well as the launching of the Google Books Library Project and the lawsuit that followed.

I am also removing the following statement:

Zahur Klemath Zapata develops the first[citation needed] software to read digital books. Digital book version 1 and the first digital book is published On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts (Thomas de Quincey).

I have searched online, in journals, and in catalogues and have not found any reliable source for this information. As far as I can tell, the source for this information is Digital Books Inc., the company run by Zapata. More importantly, this statement appears to me to be false: it's clear from the timeline that there were digital books published and software available to read digital books prior to 1993. If someone has a realiable source that argues that the publishing of "On Murder Considered as One of the Fine Arts" by Thomas de Quincey is a noteworthy event, I would be happy to discuss.

Aspiringlib (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry almost the whole advantages vs disadvantages of print vs e-books is nothing but original research

That whole section is unsourced, and a lot of the entries reek of personal opinion. Unsourced entries that are personal opinion are original research and need to be removed per Wiki standards. That whole section needs to be cleaned up. Either source EVERY statement in it, or the unsourced entries will be deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for why someone thinks e-books are so great or conversely not so great. There has to be some degree of notability in an advantage or disadvantage to be included in the list.24.190.34.219 (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I must agree, it is WP:OR - and some of the statements are rather dubious ("E-book readers are more likely to be stolen than paper books."??). If there are no improvements to the section or objections, I will clean out that section in a few days (to give time to find sources). --Sander Säde 09:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Some of the entries are dubious as well. For example, that "[f]ont size and font face can be adjusted" is not an advantage. It destroys a carefully thought out book design. May as well allow the colors in a Rembrandt painting to be adjustable and call that an advantage. (Not to mention that it is factually incorrect in many cases. The PDF format with embedded fonts protects from font substitution.) --Leokor (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The adjusting of font size is definitely an advantage; it allows a user with vision problems to enlarge the size of the font.Hellbound Hound (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Facts to add to this article

In the "Libraries" section, the growth of use in e-books in libraries is described, but there is no figure provided to illustrate for this growth. I have found this detail in There are a couple of pieces of info from The Mobile Wave, along with some advantages of e-books that aren't included in the article yet. I won't add these myself since I have a professional connection to the book: I work for the company founded by the author, and am here on the company's behalf. I'll provide details of the new info and citations below. Can someone else add these?


1. For the "Libraries" section (new information is highlighted):

US Libraries began providing free e-books to the public in 1998 through their web sites and associated services,[1] although the e-books were primarily scholarly, technical or professional in nature, and could not be downloaded. In 2003, libraries began offering free downloadable popular fiction and non-fiction e-books to the public, launching an e-book lending model that worked much more successfully for public libraries.[2] The number of library e-book distributors and lending models continued to increase over the next few years. From 2005 to 2008 libraries experienced 60% growth in e-book collections.[3] In 2010, a Public Library Funding and Technology Access Study[4] found that 66% of public libraries in the US were offering e-books,[5] and a large movement in the library industry began seriously examining the issues related to lending e-books, acknowledging a tipping point of broad e-book usage.[6]

Citation: <ref name=Saylor124>{{cite book |title=The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything |last=Saylor |first=Michael |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2012 |publisher=Vanguard Press |location= |isbn=1593157207 |page=124|pages= |url= |accessdate=20 September 2012}}</ref>

2. For the "Advantages" section (again, new information is highlighted):

E-book websites can include the ability to translate books into many different languages, making the works available to speakers of languages not covered by printed translations. Depending on the device, an e-book may be readable in low light or even total darkness. Many newer readers have the ability to display motion, enlarge or change fonts,[7] use Text-to-speech software to read the text aloud for visually impaired, partially sighted, elderly or dyslectic people or just for convenience, search for key terms, find definitions, or allow highlighting bookmarking and annotation. Additionally, e-books allow for readers to look up words or find more information about the topic immediately. Material can be organized however the author prefers and is not limited to a linear path through the book as hyper-text can allow a number of paths through the material.[8]

Citation: <ref name=Saylor54>{{cite book |title=The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything |last=Saylor |first=Michael |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2012 |publisher=Vanguard Press |location= |isbn=1593157207 |page=54|pages= |url= |accessdate=20 September 2012}}</ref>

Thanks in advance to anyone who helps. --Rkrueger (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. No consensus that this specific form is necessarily the most common or otherwise preferable. Cúchullain t/c 18:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Original request

E-book → ebook – Originally reqested by User:Gigs as technical/uncontroversial, then contested, now relisted as proper move request.

  • Is "e" the proper first letter though? "E-book", "ebook", or "eBook" are merely contracted variants of the compound term "electronic book". "E" is not so much the first letter of the word "Ebook" as still the first letter of the word "electronic" as in the full technical term "electronic book". I dunno. MoS-wise, you're right, but I'm still uncomfortable with "Ebook". The hyphen somewhat alleviates this situation, so the current "E-book" is fine by me. And I could (although reluctantly, for aesthetic reasons) accept "ebook". But "Ebook" looks comparatively awkward. Just because "electronic mail" is now entirely lexicalized as "email" doesn't mean that all other "electronic" compounds are or will be lexicalized the same way, or to the same extent. --87.79.176.39 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose on the basis that there is no need to move to the lower-case format. Otherwise, you'd also have to consider "eBook" based on popular use. If the OP wishes to redraft the move request without the lower-case format, that would be more appropriate. --Ckatzchatspy 06:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The lowercase is technically not part of the move though, it's really a separate discussion about whether to include {{lowercase}} or not. Where do you stand with regard to the hyphen? Google usage statistics say that the unhyphenated version is far more widespread, so "Ebook" would be your preferred title, right? --195.14.221.253 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Lowercase suggestion struck: presumably I was low on caffeine at the time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Libraries and e-books

I am trying to add information about e-books freely available from libraries, which have been available from libraries for more than 10 years. This article talks about the history of e-books, and libraries have played a major role in their availability, with 65% of public libraries in the U.S. offer e-books.

Specific retailers are mentioned in the timeline, I feel libraries should be represented as well. Why are my edits being removed? (talk) Dczarnik (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I've reverted your addition of a link to your website because it doesn't add anything of particular relevance to the article and is fundamentally promotional. WP:EL states that a linked site should "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". Why not develop your point within the body of the article, suitably referenced according to the guidelines at WP:RS and without linking to your own website? andy (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added a paragraph on libraries and e-books, and will continue to update. I plan to add a link to E-Book Lending Libraries (http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/EBook_Lending_Libraries), and would like to revert the previous link that I added, which is not a link to my own website (as I am in only one of the thousands of libraries found on that site), but a link to a vast number of libraries that provide free e-books in the U.S., the UK, Australia and other countries. Another version of the link seems a bit more clear, but is branded by the Sony Reader product (http://sonysearch.overdrive.com/), which I was trying to avoid. There are no comparable links to search for libraries with netlibrary, ebrary, Tumblebooks, or others yet.

I was planning on all of this when I added that first link. I understand your point of view and the rules about trying to prevent commercial companies from highjacking Wikipedia articles. However, you might want to wait a little longer than a few minutes to revert changes, to view the full intent. Dczarnik (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed mobileread per WP:ELNO points 11 and 12. I don't think we should have an external link to any version of overdrive.com here, either. - MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When you removed the reference to ebrary, it made the sentence about academic libraries redundant. But also, when you removed the reference to overdrive, you also took out the reference to popular fiction and non-fiction e-books becoming available in public libraries in 2002. This was a significant event, making the e-book lending model successful for public libraries. It also leaves readers with the impression that library e-books are still reference and scholarly. I ask that you please revert to the previous text. Or should I expand on why it was significant in the article? In any case, it was not meant as a gratuitous mention of specific companies. Dczarnik (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert to the previous text, at least not without a citation. If it was a significant event that should be easy enough to find. - MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well, citation found, and text has been updated. Dczarnik (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed "many" to "some" publishers and authors not endorsing the concept of electronic publishing. The citation for 10 is out of date anyway, since Rowling is now publishing ebooks. But I'll look into changing that later. Dczarnik (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to propose an addition to the e-book library discussion section: Demand-Driven Acquisition (DDA) adopted by public libraries over the past few years. I have a scholarly article that outlines the process and I think it would be a good addition here. The source is: Becker, B. W. The e-Book Apocalypse: A Survivor's Guide. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian v. 30 no. 3 (July 2011) p. 181-4. (also I am new to wikipedia so feel free to give tips/advice-I was told to propose changes before editing an article so this is my proposal) R.t.double.u (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added the above mentioned DDA addition to the libraries section. Unfortunately I think I forgot to sign my name yesterday to my post, wondering if this matters/can I correct it? R.t.double.u (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a site that gives information about e-books in American libraries: http://www.ala.org/pla/tools/ebooks/proactive; and here are other relevant ALA sites: http://www.ala.org/pla/tools/ebooks. Kdammers (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoax

Has someone checked, whether "Ángela Ruiz Robles" is a hoax?? I really doubt this! It came in with this change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=E-book&diff=534901061&oldid=534260630 . In my opinion it is possible that other wikipedias are affected by this hoax (?) too--92.201.100.247 (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading

I really want to read a book right now lol Mfyui (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

enhanced ebooks

As this seems to be a 'trending phenomenon' and there are a number of uses on WP in various articles, there should be at least a brief description on this page. Jackiespeel (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"ebook", "e-book", or ...?

The article currently uses both "ebook" and "e-book". What should it be? --Mortense (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

ebook. Gigs (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Technical move request was contested, adding RfC tag. Gigs (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I prefer eBook. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sales

USA:

  • Sales in 2008: $61.8 million, 0.47% - [3]
  • Sales in 2009: $287 million, 2.1% - [4]
  • The total 2009 sales were approximately $313 million, up 176.6% from 2008. [5]
  • Sales of text-only e-books rose 201.0% in 2010, to $863.7 million. E-book sales accounted for 5.8% of total industry revenue in 2010. [6]
  • E-book revenues across trade publishing topped $2 billion in 2011, more than doubling from $869 million in 2010. In 2011, e-books represented about 15% of all trade publishing revenues versus 6% in 2010. [7] — Publishers’ net revenues in 2012 were $15 billion, up from $14 billion in 2011, while unit sales of trade books increased 8 percent, to $2.3 billion. [8]
  • Consumer ebooks netted publishers $3.042 billion in revenue in 2012, up 44 percent over 2011. Ebooks made up 20% of the U.S. consumer book industry in 2012, up from 15% in 2011. [9] [10]

2012-06-17: American publishers are now bringing in more revenue from ebooks than hardcover books. [11]

UK: A total number of 65 million e-books were sold in 2012, representing a value of about £200m - at least double what it was in 2011 (in volume terms more than double) [12]

Forecasts

New data from Pricewaterhouse Coopers’ Global Entertainment and Media Outlook projects that e-books will make up 50 percent of the U.S. trade book market by 2016. By 2016, PwC expects, “e-books will account for half of total spending on consumer books” in the U.S. and the total U.S. consumer book market (print + digital) will be worth $21 billion, up from $19.5 billion in 2011. [13] —  Ark25  (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

First ISBN for an ebook

I'm not sure about the first ISBN for an ebook. I notice that the college-level digital textbook Computer Concepts Brief (Oja/Parsons) has an ISBN of 0-7600-7233-7. The copyright on that digital book (distributed on CD) is 1998. Not only was this a digital textbook; it was a multimedia, interactive textbook with animations, interactive simulations, and computer-scored assessment. JAP 30 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.129.246 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Expanded Books published by the Voyager Company c. 1992 had ISBNs. Voyager licensed the technology to other publishers. The University of Chicago Press published an Expanded Book in December 1993 with ISBN 9780226468846 Dblobaum (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ebook

What is eBook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.190.82 (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

'e' abbr. 'electronic' leading to eMail for electronic-mail (AOL, msm, CompuServe, hotmail, EarthLink, and even gMail is eMail); and eBooks are electronic books, (like for Kindle Fire using the Android format delivery system.) — Does this answer your inquisitive question? Thanks for asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

this article appears to confound e-book READER hardware with e-books

The author of "Tristam Shandy" wrote a book ; it should not be confused with a manuscript or a particular edition or binding.

The discussion of e-book is often otherwise a discussion of e-book formats or types.

99.251.239.140 (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Negroponte's e-book

May be worth mention: Nicholas Negroponte's team at MIT was possibly the first to attempt to replicate a paper-like reading experience on a computer screen:

In general, these efforts miss the point of "bookness," because the act of flipping through pages is an indisputable part of the book experience. In 1978 at MIT, we animated flipping pages on a screen and even generated fluttering sounds. Cute, but no cigar. (WIRED, Issue 4.02 February 1996)

--177.206.174.171 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Negroponte's Wired 1996 article does not reliable about an event nearly 20 years ago, at the time. However, it does give a solid reference on when E-Ink started work, so I added that to the history.--Frmorrison (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on E-book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Archival Issues

I would like to point to some research completed by Siemens et. al ("HCI-Book? Perspectives on E-Book Research 2006-2008")[9] that documents the obstacles to preservation of e-books and digital ephemera in general under the Archival Storage heading. It seems pertinent that these obstacles continue to be a problem and raising awareness while pointing to pertinent research seems beneficial to readers. Thenewpulp (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems very old for such an article. Plus, it appears that you have WP:COI and WP:SPA issues. 01:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Objective3000 (talk)

References

  1. ^ Doris Small. "E-books in libraries: some early experiences and reactions." Searcher 8.9 (2000): 63–5.
  2. ^ Genco, Barbara. ”It’s been Geometric! Documenting the Growth and Acceptance of eBooks in America’s Urban Public Libraries.” IFLA Conference, July 2009.
  3. ^ Saylor, Michael (2012). The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything. Vanguard Press. p. 124. ISBN 1593157207. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ Libraries Connect Communities: Public Library Funding & Technology Access Study 2009–2010. ala.org
  5. ^ "66% of Public Libraries in US offering eBooks". Libraries.wright.edu. 2010-08-18. Retrieved 2011-10-24.
  6. ^ "At the Tipping Point: Four voices probe the top ebook issues for librarians." Library Journal, August 2010
  7. ^ Harris, Christopher. "The Truth About Ebooks." School Library Journal 55, no. 6 (2009): 18. Wilson Select Plus. Online Database
  8. ^ Saylor, Michael (2012). The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything. Vanguard Press. p. 54. ISBN 1593157207. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  9. ^ Siemens, Ray; Dobson, Teresa (2011). "HCI-Book? Perspectives on E-Book Research 2006-2008". Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada/Cahiers de la Société Bibliographique du Canada. 49 (1): 53. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on E-book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E-book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebook/Archive_3&oldid=1164854112"